On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:58:25 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:24:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I thought that in our system of government, majority rules.

===

Not so fast there. One of the reasons that it took so long to hammer
out the original constitution is that the smaller states did not want
to be dominated by the larger ones. That's why we have two senators
per state regardless of population among other things. There are a
*lot* of people who do not want to be governed by the concepts and
needs of the big population centers but unfortunately that seems to be
the trend of things.

The ironic thing these days is the "Democrats" are the least
"democratic". They prefer rule by SCOTUS decision to rule by
referendum. (until it doesn't go their way)
If the majority actually did rule, most of their sacred cows would be
hamburger.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

This is worse than I thought. The FBI says only 64% of the murders in
the US lead to an arrest and they don't actually get a conviction on
all of them.
Here is a story on NPR. That should be a liberal enough source for you
lefties.
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-one-third-of-murders-in-america-go-unresolved

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

You are talking about something less than 1% of the murders. There are
~11,000 a year and the news makers account for less than 100.

Because mass murder brings it home. 20 bodies of little
1st graders slaughtered by a legally purchased rifle tends
to do that.

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.
Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry.

On 1/5/2016 7:35 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:59:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:54:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Understood. Just pointing out that Harry is absolutely correct in
stating that there are many ways of acquiring a gun without any kind
of background check. That's just not right, IMO.

Yeah, the easiest way is to just steal it.


And if the owner allows it to be easily stolen by not taking reasonable
precautions to prevent the theft, he or she should share in a degree of
liability if the stolen gun is used in a crime.

Not talking about being "held up" or otherwise having the gun taken
beyond reasonable control. I am talking about leaving it laying around,
unsecured and having it swiped. That is not responsible ownership.

Gun ownership is a right. The 2nd has been interpreted to mean that.
But a "right" is not devoid of responsibility.

Now we are blaming the victim. Even the states with "gun protection"
laws usually include a trigger lock in the prescribed protections.
That as nothing to do with theft protection or even much more than a
casual use. I was able to defeat the trigger lock that came with the
last pistol I bought in a few minutes ... non-destructively, using
stuff you would find in most people's desk drawer.
Even if you have one of those $400 safes, a guy with an angle grinder
will be in it in a few minutes. They are usually 16 gauge steel.
It all depends on how valuable the collection is doesn't it?


Maybe you missed "unsecured" in my comment (above). If a gun owner has
taken reasonable precautions to prevent theft or unauthorized use he/she
shouldn't be held responsible for what it may be used for if stolen. I
was referring to those who *don't* take reasonable precautions. That is
what those laws are designed for. The fact that you happen to be an
expert in cracking safes or defeating locks is not the point.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:11:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 7:35 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:59:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:54:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Understood. Just pointing out that Harry is absolutely correct in
stating that there are many ways of acquiring a gun without any kind
of background check. That's just not right, IMO.

Yeah, the easiest way is to just steal it.


And if the owner allows it to be easily stolen by not taking reasonable
precautions to prevent the theft, he or she should share in a degree of
liability if the stolen gun is used in a crime.

Not talking about being "held up" or otherwise having the gun taken
beyond reasonable control. I am talking about leaving it laying around,
unsecured and having it swiped. That is not responsible ownership.

Gun ownership is a right. The 2nd has been interpreted to mean that.
But a "right" is not devoid of responsibility.

Now we are blaming the victim. Even the states with "gun protection"
laws usually include a trigger lock in the prescribed protections.
That as nothing to do with theft protection or even much more than a
casual use. I was able to defeat the trigger lock that came with the
last pistol I bought in a few minutes ... non-destructively, using
stuff you would find in most people's desk drawer.
Even if you have one of those $400 safes, a guy with an angle grinder
will be in it in a few minutes. They are usually 16 gauge steel.
It all depends on how valuable the collection is doesn't it?


Maybe you missed "unsecured" in my comment (above). If a gun owner has
taken reasonable precautions to prevent theft or unauthorized use he/she
shouldn't be held responsible for what it may be used for if stolen. I
was referring to those who *don't* take reasonable precautions. That is
what those laws are designed for. The fact that you happen to be an
expert in cracking safes or defeating locks is not the point.

If you are talking about thieves, it is what they do for a living.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:40:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.

You must have missed my follow up note. The real number is 36% of the
murders do not even make it to an arrest much less recovering the
weapon so they do not have a clue where the gun came from even if they
are all registered and the owner was the shooter.
That statistic is even worse when you consider around a third of
murders are domestic/acquaintance killings where the murderer is still
there when the cops get there so they are saying they only catch about
a third of "stranger danger" killers and gang hitters. Those guns are
in the wind. Your registration went in the river with the gun.

Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry.

So you really don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion.
You believe what CNN tells you to believe and you refuse to actually
look at the facts

On 1/5/2016 11:40 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

You are talking about something less than 1% of the murders. There are
~11,000 a year and the news makers account for less than 100.

Because mass murder brings it home. 20 bodies of little
1st graders slaughtered by a legally purchased rifle tends
to do that.

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.
Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry.




Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

On 1/5/2016 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

This is worse than I thought. The FBI says only 64% of the murders in
the US lead to an arrest and they don't actually get a conviction on
all of them.
Here is a story on NPR. That should be a liberal enough source for you
lefties.
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-one-third-of-murders-in-america-go-unresolved


So two-thirds lead to an arrest. The third that does not means it's not
worth trying in your mind? Strange logic.

On 1/5/2016 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:24:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I thought that in our system of government, majority rules.

===

Not so fast there. One of the reasons that it took so long to hammer
out the original constitution is that the smaller states did not want
to be dominated by the larger ones. That's why we have two senators
per state regardless of population among other things. There are a
*lot* of people who do not want to be governed by the concepts and
needs of the big population centers but unfortunately that seems to be
the trend of things.

That's already been factored in before votes in the House of
Representatives takes place and, in most cases, a simple majority rules.
Some issues require a "super majority" but that is rare.